Delhi High Court Rejects Contempt of Court Plea Against Judge for Case Dismissal

The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, emphasized that there are proper channels to challenge a court’s decision, but taking contempt of court action against a judge in their personal capacity for a judgment they rendered constitutes a direct assault on the integrity and honor of the judicial system.

Justice Jasmeet Singh clarified that a judge could only be held in contempt if there was clear evidence of severe and deliberate misuse of the legal process, corruption, or intentional defiance of the court’s authority.

The court underlined the existence of safeguards in the Constitution of India and the country’s legal framework to contest court decisions. Pursuing contempt proceedings against a judge on an individual level was deemed an unwarranted attack on the dignity and integrity of the judiciary.

Justice Singh also stated that a lawyer acting professionally should not be implicated in contempt of court proceedings on a personal level, as there are established mechanisms to address professional misconduct.

The court stressed the importance of maintaining judicial independence, including safeguarding the independence of the legal profession, allowing lawyers to carry out their duties in a secure and impartial environment.

These remarks were made during the court’s consideration of a civil contempt case brought by Vijay Kumar Agarwal against the Additional District Judge (ADJ), who had dismissed Agarwal’s lawsuit, the counsel representing the respondent before the trial court, and the respondent himself.

Agarwal had initiated a civil suit concerning the possession of immovable property in Delhi’s Mayur Vihar area. The suit had been dismissed in default in May 2012, but Agarwal later filed a restoration application. The case dragged on for years, and he even filed several perjury applications against the respondent.

On July 22, 2023, the suit was dismissed under Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) due to non-payment of costs, which were a prerequisite for restoring the suit.

After examining the case, Justice Singh noted that the petitioner was not contesting the dismissal of his suit on its merits but was attempting to initiate contempt of court proceedings.

The court pointed out that the petitioner’s aim was to use contempt proceedings to extract an explanation from the learned ADJ regarding his decision. If such petitions were entertained, judges would be obliged to provide explanations and reasoning for their decisions, which was deemed impermissible by the High Court.

The court reaffirmed that the courts were constitutional institutions tasked with protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens. Pursuing contempt proceedings against a district court judge because one’s grievances were not adequately addressed was seen as misguided and discouraged by the single judge.

While acknowledging that the petitioner had exceeded the bounds of fair criticism, the court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings against him due to his reported neurological issues.

The court concluded that the trial court’s judgment did not contain any actionable direction against the respondent, and therefore, no contempt was established against him either.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the petitioner being given the liberty to pursue any legal remedies available to him against the order dated July 22, 2023.

Vijay Kumar Agarwal represented himself, while the respondents were represented by advocates Abhinav Singh and Ryat Dwivedi.